I believe in free speech and I believe in free markets. After all, the best things in life are free. But I also believe that freedom brings along responsibility, and that it would a gross error to decouple the two.
Laws are not designed in a vacuum. Laws are designed keeping in mind the ideals and principles of civil and moral conduct on the one hand and on the other, the culture and level of maturity of the people who will be governed by those laws. So, while I believe in free speech and free markets, I am reconciled to the fact that they are only suited for a society of mature, civilised self-governing adults who don't need to be supervised and shepherded towards responsible behaviour.
And if things are not functioning the way they should, then they need to be corrected. Through peaceful means. If the legal and regulatory framework needs to be modified, for better alignment with changing times and changing behavioural patterns, then peaceful public discourse should be used to evolve the most suitable modifications. If the enforcement machinery needs to be corrected, to improve integrity, improve focus, commitment and execution capability, then appropriate reforms should be initiated by the government in office and if that government is not doing its job then the people who elected that government must push for change. Peacefully, through dialogue, debate and negotiation.
Why must people argue the case for unconditional free speech (or unregulated free markets, for that matter) when they can see all around them the tendency of citizens (and corporations, in the case of markets) to ignore responsibility and abuse freedom? Do these same champions of free speech also argue that the laws that govern driving under the influence of alcohol must be repealed? Why not? Why not assume that people are mature and responsible enough not to drink and drive?
To those who believe that India should repeal Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code which defines the offence of sedition, I have a suggestion: let's get rid of all the drunk driving laws first, and see how we do with that. If it works, then it means we're dealing with a mature society. Then, let's repeal the Sedition Law!
Laws are not designed in a vacuum. Laws are designed keeping in mind the ideals and principles of civil and moral conduct on the one hand and on the other, the culture and level of maturity of the people who will be governed by those laws. So, while I believe in free speech and free markets, I am reconciled to the fact that they are only suited for a society of mature, civilised self-governing adults who don't need to be supervised and shepherded towards responsible behaviour.
If we are dealing with a society where immature, irresponsible behaviour is rampant, where people display poor civic sense, where people only argue for their rights but do not recognize their duties that come along with those rights, then we need a legal and regulatory framework that clearly defines specific pre-conditions which ensure that such freedoms are not abused. And we need clean, prompt and unbiased enforcement of that legal and regulatory framework. And we need an independent and efficient judiciary that will hear differences of opinion on each case where the nature and extent of enforcement is being challenged, and deliver justice. This is what democracies are supposed to be made up of. This is what we have, in India. And that includes freedom of expression which all of us enjoy, to the extent that we can shout out from our rooftops that we don't have freedom of expression in this country and not risk being thrown in jail.
And if things are not functioning the way they should, then they need to be corrected. Through peaceful means. If the legal and regulatory framework needs to be modified, for better alignment with changing times and changing behavioural patterns, then peaceful public discourse should be used to evolve the most suitable modifications. If the enforcement machinery needs to be corrected, to improve integrity, improve focus, commitment and execution capability, then appropriate reforms should be initiated by the government in office and if that government is not doing its job then the people who elected that government must push for change. Peacefully, through dialogue, debate and negotiation.
Why must people argue the case for unconditional free speech (or unregulated free markets, for that matter) when they can see all around them the tendency of citizens (and corporations, in the case of markets) to ignore responsibility and abuse freedom? Do these same champions of free speech also argue that the laws that govern driving under the influence of alcohol must be repealed? Why not? Why not assume that people are mature and responsible enough not to drink and drive?
To those who believe that India should repeal Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code which defines the offence of sedition, I have a suggestion: let's get rid of all the drunk driving laws first, and see how we do with that. If it works, then it means we're dealing with a mature society. Then, let's repeal the Sedition Law!
